said, he wished to remind the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, that in 1843 an Act was passed to carry out a convention which had been entered into for the regulation of the oyster fisheries in the Channel, whereby arrangements were established which it was thought would be satisfactory to both countries. He (Sir G. Pechell), in asking a question at the time, was assured that those regulations would not in any way interfere with the fishing in Mid-Channel. Now, however, he was informed that the French Government had made communications with a view to prevent such fishing. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any instructions had been issued to the Commissioners of Customs (in consequence of any representation from the French Government), directing the commanders of revenue cruisers to prevent vessels taking oysters in the English Channel beyond the limits exclusively reserved to the fishermen of this country?

said, that in consequence of the convention that was entered into some years ago between Her Majesty and the late King of the French relative to the Channel fisheries, an Act of Parliament was passed for the purpose of carrying that Convention into effect; and, among other provisions of that Act, there was one forbidding within certain months—from the 1st of May to the 1st of September, any fishing-boat in the Channel having any dredges or other fishing implements on board. Representations had been made to Her Majesty's Government, by the Government of France, to the effect that they were about to carry that treaty out, and wishing this Government to do the same. Representations had likewise been made to them by various bodies of fishermen in this country, some of whom wished the Act to be strictly carried out, and others of whom wished it to be relaxed. The fishermen of Dovor and on the coast of Essex were in favour of relaxation, while the fishermen on the coast of Kent were in favour of the Act being strictly put in force. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government felt that they had no choice but to have the law, while it remained in force, executed fairly. There was no power under that law to prevent oysters from being landed and sold, but there was a power preventing boats from having dredges on board, and that, he supposed, was introduced to deter from poaching.

wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay the correspondence with the French Government, and the orders sent to the Commissioners of Customs, upon the table?

would make inquiries upon the subject, but he did not apprehend there would be any objection to his doing so.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would also lay before the House the memorials he had received from the fishermen on different parts of the coast, because it was a question which materially affected the means of subsistence of many hardworking and industrious families; and if it were intended to alter the law, it was right the House should become acquainted with the claims of those parties.

had no objection whatever to the production of some of them. Generally, he might say, the memorials prayed that the Act should be enforced.

begged to ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of railway companies having paid up a certain proportion of their capital, and complied with certain conditions to be named by the Government, the Government was willing to make advances by way of loan to railway companies in Ireland; and whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to state what the conditions were which he required to be complied with before making such advances?

The conditions precedent upon which loans can be contracted by railway companies, are contained in the Act of Parliament by which those railway companies are formed; and the conditions on which Her Majesty's Government have made these advances, when the conditions precedent have been complied with, have been to make loans by instalments through the medium of Exchequer Bills. Their duty is to make the loans by instalments, and to see, when every new instalment is made, that a sum equal to that instalment has also been defrayed from the funds of the company. In this manner a sum above 1,200,000l. has already been advanced by the Treasury; and I am bound to say, the interest and the instalments have been all duly and precisely paid. Besides that 1,200,000l. there has been a sum of 500,000l. advanced to the Irish Great Western Railway by virtue of their special Act. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend, having made these remarks, I must observe that this is an abstract question, and I am unwilling to give an abstract reply on such a subject. But if my hon. Friend will call at the Treasury with any particular instance, and lay before the Treasury all the details of that instance, we shall give that instance that consideration which we have always given to others, and we shall act in a way which we think will tend to the general welfare, and give such assistance to Irish enterprise as we may think desirable.

said, he begged to inquire of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the communications that have lately taken place between Her Majesty's Government and members of the Executive Councils of Canada and New Brunswick, who have come to this country, relative to the formation of a railway from Halifax to Quebec, have been brought to a satisfactory termination? Also, whether there was any objection to lay before the House the correspondence between those members of the Executive Councils of Canada and New Brunswick and Her Majesty's Government?

said, the negotiations to which the hon. Gentleman referred had now terminated; but whether the termination might or might not be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman he was unable to say, considering that it was a question on which very great difference of opinion existed. But he had to state, that after much consideration on the subject, Her Majesty's Government had arrived at the decision—and they had done so with much regret—a decision which they had communicated to the Governors of the Colonies in question, and to the members of the deputation, namely, that they were unable to recommend to the Imperial Parliament to give the security of the public revenue for the construction of a railway from Halifax to Quebec, by the only line which the deputation were empowered to assent to. With regard to the latter question, he was not aware there was any objection to the production of the correspondence; but he would give a decided answer on that matter to-morrow.

said, that in the debate on Friday last, on the New Zealand Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had stated in the course of his speech that, in his opinion, the faith of the Crown was pledged to the arrangement with the New Zealand Company, with reference to their debt, in a manner somewhat different from the statutable arrangement of 1847; and he (Sir J. Graham) understood the right hon. Gentleman to found that opinion upon the correspondence which had taken place between the Secretary of State—before the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to office-and the New Zealand Company; and the right hon. Gentleman had added, he was of opinion that that correspondence ought to be in the hands of Members before the discussion on the New Zealand Bill was again resumed. He wished, therefore, to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to lay that correspondence upon the table of the House?

said, that the statement which he had made on Friday night, and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, was to the effect that the clause in the New Zealand Bill relating to the state of things between the Government and the New Zealand Company did not rest exclusively, as the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken previously (Mr. Gladstone) had supposed, upon the clause in the Act of 1847, but that a subsequent arrangement had been entered into, which consisted of a correspondence between the late Secretary of State (Earl Grey) and the New Zealand Company; and he had also stated that he had no objection to lay that correspondence on the table of the House, But he was not then aware of the fact that that correspondence was included in the list of papers relating to the transactions between the Government and the Company which had been already laid upon the table, and he begged to refer the right hon. Gentleman to those published papers.

wished to know when the papers which he (Sir W. Molesworth) had referred to would he presented?

said, he feared it was impossible to have those papers ready before the next discussion on the New Zealand Bill. They were very voluminous, and owing to the pressure of business, he feared that they could not be produced in less than a month from the time the hon. Gentleman moved for them. He would see, however, that as much despatch as possible was made with them.

said, that on Friday evening he had given notice that, unless in the meantime he should be otherwise advised, he would on Monday ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with respect to the appointment of the Rev. J. W. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome. He was sure it would give the right hon. Gentleman pleasure to know that he had been otherwise advised. He (Viscount Castlereagh) had had no previous communication with the rev. gentleman whose name had been implicated in an accusation brought against him in that House on the authority of Battersby's Catholic Directory. That morning, however, he had received a communication from the Rev. Mr. Bennett, stating that he could give a very satisfactory explanation on the subject, namely, that there was not one word of truth in the statement in Battersby's Directory respecting his having joined the Romish Church, and that he (Viscount Castlereagh) must be aware that the writer was in holy orders, and in communion with the Church of England, from the fact that he was at present vicar of Frome, and hoped to continue so. The reason why he (Viscount Catlereagh) had intended to ask any question on the subject was, that he was apprehensive lest the character of the Rev. Mr. Bennett might suffer from the unauthorised report which had obtained circulation through the pages of Battersby's Catholic Directory, and the rather as the inquiry instituted by the Government had not resulted in the vindication of the rev. gentleman, but was simply directed to a legal and technical point. He would warn hon. Members against placing too much reliance on the statements of Battersby's Directory, so far, at least, as conversions were concerned, for he held in his hand a letter from another cler- gyman, who, though differing from Mr. Bennett on some ecclesiastical points, had been, reported in that publication to have joined the Roman Catholic Church, whereas the fact was, that he was still a clergyman of the Established Church, and was in possession of his living, and likely to re-roam so.

said, he regretted that Her Majesty's Government should have sanctioned the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell). It had already gone through three editions, but though they had wasted time and paper upon it, it remained as bad a Bill as had ever come before them. He warned the Government against the mantraps and spring guns set by the other side, for they would get caught if they did not mind. The Star Chamber was a farce compared with the tribunal which this Bill would create. It would send down Commissioners—briefless barristers he supposed—into various parts of the country; and, like poachers, they would lie waiting for their prey in the darkness of the night, and endeavour to entrap innocent and unwary persons—persons less likely to be guilty of corruption than the noble Lord himself. It would be well to sift what took place at the last election in the pure and immaculate City of London— how much money was paid, and to remember, qui facit per alium facit per se. Let the noble Lord remember that solemn warning about the mote in his brother's eye, and the beam in his own. It was a roost unchristian-like Bill, and would restrain men from exercising those duties which their country had called on them to perform. If the Government chose to give an hon. Member an appointment of 2,000l. or 5,000l. a year, that was not bribery; but if a poor man got a shilling for refreshments, it was so. [Cries of "Question!"] He knew hon. Gentlemen did not like to hear these things. There were two kinds of bribery—real bribery, and made bribery; and it was principally with the latter that this Bill would deal. The Bill would encourage perjury, and he should, therefore, move that the third reading should take place that day three months.

paid, it would afford him much gratification in seconding the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln. He had taken a very active part against a similar Bill, introduced by the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls, on a former occasion, and he should, consequently, use his best endeavours to defeat this measure. The former Bill was stopped in the House of Lords by Lord Denman, who said it was so unconstitutional it ought not to he allowed to proceed. If the constituencies were to be dealt with, it ought to be by both Houses, in the same way as St. Albans had been treated. In that House, where party feeling ran high, he could conceive a case of an inquiry being directed to affect one party in a borough, when the other was as much open to it. He remembered such an inquiry with reference to the city of York about fifteen years ago, the sole object of which was to damage the Conservative electors, leaving those of the Whig party untouched. The object was defeated by his exertions: for as soon as it was found the Whig voters were equally involved, the inquiry was abandoned. A Whig Government being in office, the counsel on their side got their fees allowed; but he had been about 1,100l. out of pocket by his defence of the electors of York on that occasion. He had no personal interest in defeating this Bill, having no constituents to bribe or intimidate; but he was convinced its passing would give great dissatisfaction to the country. If not defeated here, he was confident it would be in another place. What was the necessity for the Bill? Why could not corrupt places be dealt with singly like St. Albans? Probably the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) believed what was stated by one of the Committees on the St. Albans inquiry, that all boroughs were corrupt alike, and thought it would be less trouble to deal with them in the lump. It was an insult to the constituencies of England to act on such a belief, and to introduce a wholesale Bill like this. It had been said that Leicester ought to be inquired into; and nothing would be more easy than to make out a primâ facie case for that or any other place, and get a commission sent down to ransack gentlemen's papers, and inquire into their transactions. If it were true that corruption existed in every borough, the best course would be to pass a Bill authorising commissions to visit every one of them. The machinery of this Bill was aimed purely at the poor man, whom it was sought to crush, and leave hon. Gentlemen in possession of all the privileges they now enjoyed. He would not entrust to this House the powers conferred by this Bill; for he considered that nothing was more dangerous than the assertion of the powers and privileges of Parliament as against the people themselves.

said, he cordially agreed with the preceding speakers in the view they had taken of the Bill. He saw no reason why these constituencies should be subjected to such an inquisition as this Bill would create. In the City of London there was a body of persons, 1,000 in number, who regularly expected the sum of 40s. each before they voted. [Cheers.] He did not say any of them voted for the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell); he believed they did not; he was confident the noble Lord knew nothing of such a practice. Was the House prepared to send such a Commission as this Bill would authorise into the City of London, or to any place with 10,000 or 20,000 constituents? If not, it was a mockery and a delusion to apply it merely to small places. He admitted that he represented a borough which had played an important part before a Committee of that House; and he was convinced it was dangerous for candidates to engage in contests for such boroughs. But the effect of such a Bill as this would be to bring a set of fellows forward as candidates who had nothing to lose, either in character or money—mere desperadoes, who would aspire to a seat in that House as a last resort. Every one knew there was such a thing as patronage in that House, and that it was generally given to those who supported the Ministers. Would the noble Lord say that that was a less corrupt practice than the practice of paying voters at an election?

said, he had an Amendment to propose to the first clause. The House would remember that the Bill originally provided that when any Member had reason to believe in the existence of corrupt practices in any borough, he might move for an address to the Crown to issue a Commission of Inquiry. The Bill was afterwards altered, requiring the intervention of an Inquiry by a Committee of the House before any such Commission could be applied for. What he now proposed was, that the fact of the existence of corruption might also be ascertained by a judicial inquiry before a Court of Record; and he therefore begged to move the insertion of words to that effect.

said, he thought it would be very inconvenient to insert the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman; for all that such an inquiry could do would be to ascertain individual cases of bribery; but the object sought by this Bill was evidence of wholesale corruption.

said, he agreed in what the hon. and learned Gentleman had just stated, and wished that the hon. and learned mover of the Amendment would explain how it was possible that any judicial proceeding could take place which could throw open an inquiry into what was, in fact, the object of the Bill, namely, a wholesale system of corruption.

did not think any proceedings before a Court of Law would prevent the necessity of an inquiry, either by a Committee or at the bar of that House.

wished to know why the provision of this Bill should not be extended to counties? It was at present confined to cities and boroughs. He believed county electors were quite as corrupt as, and certainly much more dependent than, 10l. voters in boroughs. The clause creating the 50l. voters, and which was commonly called the "Chandos clause," was opposed by him at the time it was brought forward; but several of his hon. Friends the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) among the number, supported it on the ground that good might come out of evil, and that, as that class of voters would be so corrupt, it would at last lead to the ballot. Well, they had been waiting for upwards of twenty years, but the ballot appeared to be as far off as ever. It was well known that the 50l. tenants-at-will were wholly at the control of the landlords. By the 6th Clause of this Bill, the definition of bribery was "by way of the gift or the promise of the gift of any sum of money or other valuable consideration." As the tenants-at-will were perfectly dependent upon their landlords, he would ask, whether a promise to continue them in their farms, if they would vote for Mr. So-and-so, was not a valuable consideration, taken with the fact that if they did not so vote they would be immediately ejected? Another question referred to in the Bill was that of treating; and he believed there was ten times more treating in the counties than in the boroughs. Why, then, were counties to be exempted from the operation of this Bill? He thought the proposition to be a very great insult to the borough electors. Look at St. Albans; since the disfranchisement many of its voters would be merged in the county constituency; and did the House believe that they would be more pure as county voters than they had been as borough voters? Not a bit of it. He believed that some of them were even now established as agents for the Protectionist party. At all events, a time would no doubt come when the charge of corrupt practices would be made against counties. What, in that case, would the House do? Why, they would of course propose another Bill applicable to counties. Why not, then, do it at once? It could do no harm, but might do good. He therefore begged to move the insertion of words that would carry on this views.

said, if he were not mistaken, the hon. Member for Pins-bury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had just voted against his (Col. Sibthorp's) Amendment to postpone the third reading of the Bill till that day three months; and, by that vote, he had condemned the boroughs and had supported the noble Lord's Bill. That being the case, although he (Col. Sibthorp) might be disposed to extend the same measure to counties as the House had determined to apply to boroughs, yet, coming as the proposition did from such a quarter, he felt it necessary to be cautious how he accepted the hon. Member's favours — Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes. But this he would repeat, that he had never controlled a tenant's vote in his life, and never would.

said, the reason why he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury was, that this Bill, in a great measure, would be the machinery for transferring the franchise of small boroughs to large towns. He was very much afraid that would be the way the Bill would work. It provided for inquiry, the result of which was to be laid before Parliament, but they did not know what ulterior course would be taken; in his opinion, therefore, there was no valid reason why counties should not be included. His attention had been drawn to a large amount of bribery in counties, not by landlords only, but by Freehold Land Societies—freehold societies which were countenanced by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). He had heard of some of these societies being established in that portion of the country in which he (Capt. Harris) resided, and he understood the object was to bring the men who joined them completely under the control of those who apportioned the lands. Many of the men who held freeholds were in debt, and likely to continue in debt, and so long as they were in debt they held their votes at the disposal of the committees of those societies. He thought there was as much ground for inquiry into that state of things in the counties, as for inquiring into the practices in cities and boroughs; and considering, as he did, that it was unfair to the cities and boroughs not to include the counties, he should vote in favour of the Amendment.

said, he would support the Amendment, because it was invidious towards cities and boroughs to suppose that they alone were subject to temptation. He observed that the title of the Bill was sufficiently general to admit of the Amendment without alteration—the title being, "to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament."

said, if there was any necessity to protect the tenants at will in England from unjust influence, that protection was doubly necessary in Ireland, where corrupt practices were at the present time being carried into effect, and he should, therefore, feel it his duty strenuously to support the Amendment.

said, the hon. Member for Christ Church (Capt. Harris) seemed more conversant with the party politics of the county in which he re- sided than with Freehold Land Societies, which he represented to be of so base a nature that the freeholders were obliged to render their votes at the dictation of the committees of those societies. The 40s. freehold qualification was such that the voters need not be influenced in the way suggested. The hon. Member (Capt. Harris) had not named the county; he had not named the society; he had not named his informant; and, if the character of the hon. Gentleman did not stand so high, he (Mr. G. Anstey) would be inclined to think the whole story anonymous and fictitious. With regard to the Amendment proposed, if the object of the Bill was to exclude counties because of the amount of population, why not exclude Manchester and Liverpool, and Edinburgh and Glasgow, which were far more populous than several counties? If the object of the Bill was to exclude counties because of their extent, why not exclude the borough of Wenlock, which was thirty miles long, or Aylesbury, which was nearly the same size, and much more extensive than the little county of the Isle of Wight, or the county of Rutland. Whether the object was population or territory, this distinction ought to be abolished, and he should therefore support the Amendment.

said, the hon. and learned Member seemed to think he had advanced a charge that was incorrect. He would repeat what he had stated, that he had understood from several persons that money was advanced to these freeholders to purchase the freeholds—[Mr. C. ANSTEY: Where?]—and that they were to pay the money back by instalments, and that during the time the money was in course of repayment the votes were at the disposal of the committee of the society. [Mr. C. ANSTEY: What society?] This he had not heard from one quarter, but from a hundred different people, and whetherit was correct or not, he thought the House would agree with him it was a fit topic for inquiry.

said, he was one who had encouraged these Freehold Land Societies. He belonged to one in the City of London, and he would venture to say the imputation which had been made, was a calumny upon that society. He knew they were associated for the purchase of properties in different parts of the country; but so far from interfering with the exercise of franchise, there was never the least question put to the members as to their political opinions. The great point with these so- cieties was the extension of the suffrage, without noticing who the individuals were who obtained it. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member (Capt. Harris) would take the opportunity of ascertaining at an early day what society was referred to, because this calumny at present applied to all similar societies; and these societies were conferring great benefits, inducing habits of economy and prudence in those who joined them. With regard to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Duncombe) he would be glad to hear from the noble Lord who brought in this Bill, whether he had any objection to it, because if he expressed his approbation, the Government, he apprehended, would have no objection, and he hoped the point would then be conceded of applying the provisions of the Bill, as they ought to he applied, to all classes of electors.

said, he could add his testimony to that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) with regard to the Freehold Land Societies. Speaking particularly of the largest—the one which had extended the suffrage the most, the one in Birmingham, and those in Lancashire—he was quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Capt. Harris) was entirely mistaken—that he knew nothing about them but what he had picked up from the papers of his party, which of course could not be relied upon. The hon. Gentleman might certainly have had some connexion with another society in Birmingham, a Conservative society of which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was a member; and he (Mr. Bright) could not say that the practice of that society was not as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had represented. But the practice was not so in those societies with which he (Mr. Bright) was acquainted. If the hon. and gallant Member, or any one else, chose to become a member and a freeholder, no one would ask him what were his political opinions, or how he intended to vote. With regard to the Amendment, nothing had been said against it. The only thing that had been attempted to be said was, that as the county constituencies were very large, that kind of treating and bribery was not carried on for which boroughs were so notorious. That was just as good a reason for exempting many large constituencies in boroughs, such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds, or Birmingham, or any of the metropolitan boroughs. He believed there had never since the Reform Act been a single petition against the returns from the large boroughs or cities, with the exception of the City of London, where some old freemen still existed; and he had never heard of any charge of bribery against those constituencies to an extent to require the notice of Parliament. Therefore, if the answer was to be that county constituencies were so large, it would be equally an answer if it was proposed to include these large constituencies in the Bill. As they were legislating, it would he far better to include all, to make no difference between counties and boroughs, for whatever difference existed in the amount of independence, at least they expected equal virtue in both when the votes were given. They did not know but that hereafter, when the strife of parties became vehement, recourse might be had to extensive treating in counties, which ought to come under the operation of this Bill. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were never guilty of bribery, they would not come under the operation of this Bill. They must either admit that they wanted a different scale of virtue in boroughs and counties, or that a different scale of virtue already existed. He, therefore, thought it desirable to include counties in the Bill, and he should vote for the Amendment.

said, the reason why he did not insert the word "counties" in the original Bill was, that, although they had had many complaints for now three-quarters of a century with regard to the prevalence of corruption in boroughs, he did not remember an instance in which it had been stated that in a county, or in a division of a county, bribery had generally prevailed. Of course, they were aware that, from the time of Old Sarum down to the last instance (that of St. Albans) the practice of bribery had generally prevailed, with regard to which Parliament had made inquiries, and Parliament had legislated. He had therefore thought fit to confine the Bill to that class of cases with regard to which Parliament had already interfered and instituted inquiries. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down might make a distinction between large towns and small towns; but, in the first place, it was very difficult to draw the line as to the size of the towns which should be included; and, in the next place, he remembered an inquiry with respect to the town of Liverpool, and an intention intimated of proposing a Bill upon that subject. The reason he had not included counties, was exactly that which he had stated. He did not think there would be any objection, if complaints arose, to bringing counties under the operation of the Bill; but he thought it objectionable to insert the words at this moment, because the hon. Member who made the Motion did not propose it in Committee, did not state anything of the kind, until the House was considering the third reading of the measure. No notice had been given of the Amendment, though three other notices had appeared on the paper, and he did not think it so important that it ought to be adopted without notice. The hon. Member should have given notice of his intention to move the insertion of these words in Committee, when the question might have been fairly discussed. He did not think it fair now to move to include "counties."

said, he did not oppose the principle of the Amendment. If they were to inquire into the conduct of constituencies, he thought a limitation to a particular class of constituencies was an odious distinction. But it was his sincere belief that the county constituencies of this country were pure. That was his firm conviction; and he was quite sure, if his firm conviction were not well-founded, they would have had complaints made to that House. If, in indicating the character of borough constituencies, it would afford satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen opposite, he could say also that he believed the corruption of borough constituencies was very much exaggerated: it applied to a very limited class of boroughs. Although the principle of the suggestion was one which he would not quarrel with, it would be well for the House to consider how it would work, how the Bill would apply, supposing the word "counties" was inserted. Suppose they established a charge of corruption, were they prepared to disfranchise a county, and leave a considerable portion of England unrepresented? The machinery which applied to boroughs did not apply to counties; and however good the principle, it was not well considered, not sufficiently matured with respect to this Bill. If the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) should succeed in bringing counties under similar Parliamentary control, then it would be necessary to devise different machinery to that contained in this Bill. The subject appeared to he one which required more consideration than it had received. He quite agreed with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that the suggestion ought not to have been brought forward in this manner; that there ought to have been fair notice, that it might have been seen whether, if they adopted the machinery of the Bill, they could apply it to the principle of the Amendment. It struck him that the machinery was inapplicable. He would ask the House, were they prepared to sanction what, for aught they knew, might lead to the disfranchisement of the whole West Riding of Yorkshire, and leave the most considerable provinces of England unrepresented? He did not disapprove at all of the principle. He did not see why, if they legislated for boroughs, counties should not be included; but he hoped the House would not proceed to include them in this manner.

said, if his memory did not deceive him, though he much doubted it after what had fallen from his noble Friend the Member for the city of London, he thought there had been a charge made of the most extensive bribery ever practised at an election having been practised at an election for West Gloucestershire. On account of some technical difficulty it was not inquired into—it -could not be brought before the ordinary tribunal; but a Committee was apppointed to inquire whether a noble Lord had not been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House in the manner in which he interfered in that election. As his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) found it very difficult to draw the line between the constituency of one borough and that of another, so he (Lord R. Grosvenor) thought it very difficult to draw a line between boroughs and counties. Whether the machinery of the Bill were applicable or not, he did not know, but at present he should vote for the Amendment.

thought, after what had fallen from the noble Lord and the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House ought either to adopt the Amendment, or adjourn the debate. It was quite clear this matter was not lightly considered. The attempt to draw the line was not only absurd, but unjust—most unjust. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the constituencies of the counties were pure. Then keep them pure, by placing before them the fear of inquiry. But he entertained a different opinion, and he thought counties stood quite as much in need of a Bill of this kind as cities and boroughs. Gross corruption had been practised in counties, and he believed at the next election there would be more corruption than ever, because the motive would be more powerful than ever. It would be a gross insult to cities and boroughs to make such a Bill applicable to them and not to counties. The Bill was merely for a Commission of Inquiry, not for disfranchising any constituency. It was only a measure for a preliminary inquiry upon which the House might proceed, and they might disfranchise individuals as the result of that inquiry. He did not say he should persist in the Motion, but he thought he should, that the debate be now adjourned.

said, when the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Essex (Sir E. Buxton) was introduced to legalise treating, it was acknowledged that the practice of paying for dinners was almost universal throughout England; and it was stated that there was an agreement on both sides that no adverse proceedings should be commenced on either side on account of that practice.

would remind the House, that at the assembling of the present Parliament, a very great number of petitions were presented against the returns for counties after the last general election, among which were petitions from North Staffordshire and Cheshire; and he did not, therefore, see why counties should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. It was quite notorious that, in the West Riding of the county of York, it was a matter of arrangement between the contending parties that they should give tickets for refreshment, and pay the expenses incurred by the electors on the days of polling. The terms of the Bill were certainly large enough to include counties, because the 6th Clause directed that inquiries should be made whether any corrupt practices bad been committed by way of treating. Every principle of English justice required that a rule which was considered fair for boroughs, should be applied to counties also. He did not like anything that appeared one-sided justice. He would observe that there were three Universities which sent Members to that House, and he knew that the practice was to pay the travelling expenses of the poorer class of clergymen, and an allowance for their table while they remained in the city, If the House affirmed the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), he should take the liberty of moving, that the word "Universities" be added to the Bill, objecting as he did to any course which was of a partial and one-sided character.

said, he saw but one reason for voting against the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and that was the time and the stage at which this Amendment had been brought forward; otherwise he must say, that he himself fully concurred in what had been said as to the propriety of applying the principle of the Bill to counties. He believed that treating was carried on in counties to a considerable extent, and other influences were also brought to bear, to which the attention of that House could not be too soon directed. When he found it publicly avowed that a noble Lord, a Member of the House of Peers, in direct violation of the privileges of the House of Commons and of the rights of the people, had entered into a corrupt compact, to cause the return of a Member for a county constituency, which Member was to be in that House under the immediate and direct control of that noble Lord, and to be his nominee—when he found that this Member was denied the privilege of soliciting the suffrages of the electors on his own account, and that he was only permitted to ask for them in the name and on the behalf of the noble Lord who was his patron, he repeated that the attention of the House could not be too soon directed to influences of such a nature. He admitted, therefore, the propriety of applying the principle of this Bill to counties. But in this stage of the Bill the adoption of such an Amendment would give the Bill an entirely new character, and extend it to a case to which it was not intended to apply originally. But for this he should have had the greatest repugnance to voting against the Amendment.

said, he had never heard anything with more surprise than the statement made by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the West Riding of Yorkshire might be disfranchised by the operation of this Bill. Now he (Mr. Horsman) contended that the Bill contained no machinery of disfranchisement whatever. The Bill only empowered the Queen, after receiving an Address from the House of Commons, stating that corruption had been practised among any constituency, to issue a Commission of Inquiry. That was the whole of the power conveyed by this Bill. Under these circumstances he did not see on what princi- ple they could shut out the operation of inquiry from counties.

said, that the case of West Gloucestershire was the only instance which had been mentioned in which bribery and intimidation had been practised. It was said that treating took place in many counties; but no great demoralisation was occasioned by a candidate giving an elector a slice of bread and cheese, or a sandwich and a glass of beer. If that was all the treating that was to be put down in counties by the grand machinery of this Bill, he thought it was hardly worth the while of the House of Commons to interfere in so unusual a manner to put down an evil which a few days ago a large number of Members of the House thought it not unfair to legalise. When it was proposed to include counties in a Bill which was described by the noble Lord who brought it forward as one which was in the nature of a Bill of pains and penalties, he thought that some better reason should have been assigned than that given by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), that "there was nothing against it." Therefore, although no man in the House had a stronger repugnance to bribery and corruption than he had, he should feel quite justified in voting against the Amendment.

said, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Alderman Sidney) with respect to the practice at contested elections in the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was a regular understood thing there that half-a-crown and five shilling tickets should be issued. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), when he spoke of the purity of his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), should not have forgotten that the hon. Member for the West Riding had never stood a contest. Whenever he did, he, or his friends for him, which was the same thing, would, he might depend upon it, have to pay the half-crowns and the five shillings. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had talked of having never heard of corruption in counties, and put on an appearance of exceeding innocence; but the noble Lord had himself contested counties, and, if he were candid, must admit that he had paid larger sums than the mere legitimate expenses ought to have amounted to. He (Mr. Hudson) disapproved of the Bill altogether, and would not vote at all on this Amendment.

then moved to include the Universities in the operation of the Bill.

Sir, though I am aware that the privilege of addressing the House at this stage of a Bill is but sparingly used, I cannot, on the present occasion, refrain from availing myself of the Opportunity which it affords of recording my sentiments on the important and deeply interesting subject with which it deals, as well as of examining the claims of its supporters to be esteemed the uncompromising foes to, and bond fide extirpators of, the shameful and degrading practices of bribery and corruption which so unfortunately pervade our electoral system. Sir, I unhesitatingly say that there was never perpetrated in this House a greater farce, or to use a more vulgar but apposite and expressive term, a greater piece of humbug, than trying to delude the country into the belief that this measure is calculated, or was ever sincerely intended, to prevent corrupt practices at elections. I do not charge one party in this House more than another with conniving at this almost transparent deception — this organised hypocrisy. I draw a bill of indictment against the entire assembly, and do not shrink from declaring my conviction that there is no real anxiety, either on the part of Government, or of the Opposition of Whig or Tory, to eradicate this stigma Upon our representative system; and it is to the pressure of public opinion from without, and to the efforts of the, I fear, small band of really honest electors in each constituency throughout the country, that in the absence of any serious attempt in this place, we must look for any chance of elevating the standard of political morality on the part of the constituencies at large. A distinguished and well-known foreign writer on the Constitution of England has affirmed, that "the liberties of this country are secure so long as the House of Commons remains incorrupt;" that is, while it purely and faithfully represents the Wants and wishes of the people. Now, I ask, can this be alleged to be the condition of the present House, or how far will it justly be descriptive of the House about to be elected? Is it not well known that at every general election from 1,500,000l. to 2,000,000l. are spent by candidates and their friends, with the aid of leagues and clubs, in stifling true political action, in promoting drunkenness and debauchery, and degrading the franchise to a mere marketable commodity? I blush to think that foreigners who, in other respects, not unjustly take England as a model of representative government, should be able to hold up the finger of scorn at this debasing element of our elective machinery. But it has long been sufficiently notorious. It did not require the disfranchisement of St. Albans or of Sudbury to lay bare these political scandals. It is generally taken for granted that the electors in boroughs are more to be swayed by a ten-pound note than by any merit or personal qualifications in a candidate, or by any preference for his political tenets; and not an experienced electioneerer in the country but would at once tell you that a "purity principle" candidate has not the shadow of a chance. In counties, this is not the case, though the legitimate expense is very great: there, men are returned by wholesome and proper influences, namely, high character, ancient family, large landed estate, and estimable personal qualifications, made known by long residence among the electors—influences which, for the safety and welfare of the country, as well as for the honour of this House, will, I trust, long continue to operate. But, in borough constituencies, no hon. Member can hope for a permanent tenure of his seat unless prepared on each occasion of an election to bleed freely. These things are not, it is true, publicly admitted in this House; but, sotto voce, they are a common topic of conversation, and particularly at this period. Our ears are constantly refreshed with interesting dialogues of this kind, between two hon. Members: "Well, how are you getting on in your borough?" "Oh! I've a very awkward customer to deal with!" & c, & c. Now, it would be naturally supposed that this "awkward customer" was some candidate exercising a legitimate influence, formidable for his merit, his moral worth, his talent, his experience, his professional reputation, or commercial ability. But nothing of the kind: push your inquiry a little further, and you find it is some ambitious, venal competitor, with, probably, no single claim upon the suffrages of the constituency beyond a long purse and a loose conscience; a man introduced by some pettifogging attorney, backed by a staff of paid agents, and with a dirty aide de camp in the guise of "The Man in the Moon," as at Aylesbury, or "the Bell-metal Man," at St. Albans, to do the actual bribery. This is the "awkward customer," and is generally found the really formidable opponent. But how, Sir, can I blame the poor electors, when you, the elite of the noblemen and gentlemen of the United Kingdom, the highly born, the highly educated, men of honour, honourable in every sense—except at elections, when you have very convenient consciences—wink at such vile and debasing practices. How can I expect better things from a poor mechanic, a needy labourer, or small shopkeeper, when you lend yourselves to the offence? You say, in answer, though it will be hardly admitted in extenuation, "If I were to kick against these practices, I should myself be kicked out, to a dead certainty." There is some truth in this plea, bad as it is; and I shall myself possibly be made more fully sensible of its force at the coming election. Let, then, this probability that I may be addressing the House for the last time, at any rate for the last time on this subject, secure for me greater indulgence than I could otherwise hope for, if I venture to say that there are not a few hon. Members of this House who, so far from disavowing any participation in these corrupt practices, positively glory in them. I remember, at Cambridge, to tell a lie to a proctor was considered part of the moral code of an undergraduate; so there is a species of crooked morality in this House with regard to election matters, though any hon. Member would feel indignant at the imputation of the slightest moral delinquency in any other case. In election proceedings, mal-practices are made a constant subject of postprandial boasting. One hon. Member plumes himself upon having spent 10,000l. in contesting such a place; another with having fought two contested elections and one petition, at a cost of 20,000l: and what, indeed, is recognised as a stronger claim to a rod ribbon, or a Baronetcy, an Embassy, or a Lordship of the Treasury, or any other snug Ministerial "desideratum," than, having successfully bribed an expensive constituency, except it be the conviction of a Minister that you will successfully do it again? There is not the slightest encouragement from any quarter, either among the electors or elected, to pursue a purer system. I have known, it is true, even among the poorer electors, some few whom no bribe could tempt; and I particularly remember, in the course of my canvass for the borough I have the honour to represent, a poor shoemaker being pointed out to me, who had seen better days, and whose misfortunes were attributable to his steadfast and honest adherence to his political principles. But I well remember, also, that his fellows looked upon him as a kind of crackbrained person, who, as the phrase went, did not know on which side his bread was buttered. And I believe that no very dissimilar notions are entertained hero of a man who does not unreservedly ally himself either to the set of men who hold in their hands the honey of the hive, or to the only other set, they who are trying to get possession of the sweet confection. If you are wise in your generation you range yourself with the In 's; or, if their tenure of place be shaky, it may answer better to enlist under the banners of the expectants. But to enter this House upon highminded principles, as a really independent man, determined to speak your own sentiments; to vote for measures irrespective of men; to have, in short, no other motive in the discharge of the gratuitous and truly laborious duties—when faithfully performed—of a representative, than to preserve an approving conscience and a grateful constituency:—such a political phoenix—such a moral phenomenon— would be politely called an "eccentric individual;" a refined nomenclature for dubbing him an ass. It is in vain to quibble about it; corruption and bribery, under one form or other, is the motive power of our Government, from the hustings to St. Stephen's, and you don't care to suppress it. You have already passed various statutes framed nominally to prevent and to punish bribery; but who ever heard of their being enforced? Why does not Mr. Attorney, as the custom morum of the public, put existing law in motion against your Coppocks and Edwardses, and a hundred other such worthies, as well as enforcing some doubtful penalties against a poor devil of a publisher for a trifling evasion of the Stamp Act? But, I repeat, there is no real disposition, no bond fide intention, to prevent or punish anything of the kind. I charge the noble Lord the late Prime Minister, one of the leading statesmen of this age, with having readily consented to the insertion of a clause in this Bill which must inevitably destroy the little merit which the Bill did possess, and make it a mere brutum fulmen, or idle threat. One might fancy that the noble Lord distrusts the work of his own hands —that he even is not anxious to see the constituencies called into being by his own Reform Bill, exercise their franchise freed from and uninfluenced by corrupt considerations. He probably dreads the consequence of a pure election, namely, a violent democratic majority in this House—a result by no means in my opinion improbable. But is it right to avert even such a calamity by such means—by degrading and corrupting the major part of every borough constituency in the kingdom, and thus sending men to this House who instead of representing any principle, represent absolutely nothing but their ability to bribe? What weight can be attached either to the speeches or votes of such men whether for Free-trade or Protection, Popery or Protestantism, when money alone has secured their seats? Read the Report of the Committee of 1842, and then let me ask if I am not right, if I am not borne out in all I say, whether there can be a greater absurdity, a greater libel upon representative institutions, than a borough election as commonly conducted, except it be the still grosser injustice and the still more solemn piece of mockery, an Election Committee. Look at their decisions; take only those of last Session as an example, when one hon. Member was unseated for want of a proper qualification, though every one knew him to possess ten times the required qualification; and, per contra, as a kind of set-off, you seated another Gentleman who in his place declared that, had he sat on the Committee, he was so ashamed of the bribery and corruption by which he gained his election that he would have unseated himself. Yet this is the barrier you have set up to inquiry: the sanction of a Committee, before even the preliminary step of appointing a Commission to inquire—to drag corruption to the light —can be resorted to. Sir, not a Member sits here but must feel that this Bill is a mere piece of waste paper; and I wish, Sir, it were permitted to me to ask your opinion. That there are means to put down bribery at elections without having recourse to the ballot, I in my own mind have no doubt; and had I the influence requisite to give them a fair reception here, I would point out how, in my opinion, such an end might be attained. But it is fruitless to do so, for I am more than ever persuaded by the manner in which this peddling measure has made its way through this House that there is no sincere wish to see the people of this country justly appreciate their privilege of the franchise, or to see them exercise it in a manner becom- ing men worthy of the name of freemen. But don't let us add gross hypocrisy to our other offences, by endeavouring to palm off this trumpery device on the country as an honest and bond fide en deavour on the part of the House of Commons to extirpate bribery and corruption at elections.

said, he had heard some extraordinary speeches since he had been honoured by a seat in that House; but of all the queer speeches he had ever heard in it, that of the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed them appeared to him to be the queerest. He could not, for the life of him, understand what was the meaning of the hon. Gentleman. He could tell the hon. Gentleman that there was one way of adopting purity of election, and that was by adopting the ballot. The ballot would afford an effectual security against intimidation and corruption, provided the constituencies were large. The hon. Gentleman had intimated in a variety of ways that they all neglected their duty, and he had told them that any man who honestly spoke his own sentiments in that House was an ass. Surely the hon. Gentlemen did not mean to say that he was himself an ass. [Mr. STANFORD: NO!] But had not the hon. Gentleman spoken his own sentiments? [Mr. STANFORD: Yes.] Then he should be glad to know what the hon. Gentleman was. The answer to that question followed as a matter of course. He had been told that the hon. Gentleman, before he had been elected for Reading, had promised to unite himself by the closest ties to a lady of that town. It appeared, however, that the hon. Gentleman had not fulfilled that pledge. But he (Mr. Wakely) acquitted him of all blame on that head, because he was sure the fault was not his. Surely he could not blame any lady for not having united herself with such an animal as he had described himself to be. A number of Members of that House had endeavoured to secure purity of election, not by indictments, but by the adoption of the ballot; and yet, on the very last occasion on which they had had the ballot under their consideration, the hon. Gentleman had recorded his vote against it. Now he (Mr. Wakley) said it was impossible to obtain purity of election without the ballot. But he concluded, from what the hon. Gentleman had said, that the hon. Gentleman was taking leave of Parliament and of his Friends in that House. It appeared to him (Mr. Wakley), however, that on such an occasion the hon. Gentleman might have been more civil in the language he used. He did not wish to say anything disagreeable to the feelings of the hon. Gentleman; and if he had said anything of the kind, the hon. Gentleman had only to blame himself for it.

rose to move the instruction to the Committee of which he had given notice. He considered the question they had to consider one of the utmost importance to a great portion of the public, for it was a fact that at any rate wherever there were parishes governed by local Acts, a deep interest was felt in the Motion which he had to submit; and he thought that whoever was in favour of the principle of local self-government should support that Motion. He believed that the foundation of all the power, wealth, prosperity, and freedom of this great country, and the principle which had made England the wonder and envy of the world, was this principle for which he had to contend. That important principle was seriously interfered with by the members of the Poor Law Board as they interpreted the law; the object of the present Bill was to continue the power of the Board so to interfere; and that what he wished to do was to take away that power, so far as it respected certain classes of parishes, which were never intended to be placed under the control of the Board by the original framers of the Poor Law Act. If the House should agree to his Motion, he intended in Committee to move the insertion of a Clause or Proviso to the effect that the provisions of the Act 4 & c 5 Will. IV., c. 76, should not extend nor be construed to extend to any parish the management of the poor whereof was regulated by a Board of Directors or Guardians under a local Act or local Acts of Parliament. He would in the meantime undertake to prove three propositions: first, that the state of the law at present was uncertain, and therefore led to litigation; second, that the law, as interpreted by the Poor Law Board, was not in harmony with the intentions of the framers of the Act; and, third, that the law was, therefore, not in a state which was salutary or beneficial. With respect to the uncertainty of the law, that was proved, he thought, by the number of actions at law between the Poor Law Board and the different parish authorities The late Sir Robert Peel was of opinion that the power of the Poor Law Board should not extend to parishes governed by local Acts, and had always thought that where there were immense masses of population well governed under local Acts, it would not be found expedient to place them under the control of the Commissioners. He hoped hon. Members would agree with that opinion of Sir Robert Peel's. Was it not, on the face of it, much more likely that such parishes as Marylebone and St. Pancras would be well and harmoniously governed, if they were under the management of the local authorities'—men who, from their position in every parish, must know the wants, wishes, and requirements of the parishioners—than if governed by any central Metropolitan Board? Why, in these parishes which he had cited, with their enormous and continually increasing populations, the management of the workhouses was admirable; and this was where the officers were popularly elected. He could not conceive that any Poor Law Board or Commission could be more fitted to manage these affairs than the representatives chosen by the parishioners, than whom he believed no more intelligent men could be found. He had mentioned, as a result of the present uncertainty of the law, that it had given rise to litigation in some well-known cases where the local Board of Directors or Guardians of the Poor had been brought into collision with the Commissioners. There was the proof of it to be found in the case which had lately occurred in the parish of St. Pancras, a parish which was governed partly by a local Act and partly by the 1 & c 2 Will. IV., c. 60, commonly known as Hobhouse's Act, which the parish had adopted. The vestrymen were elected by the whole of the ratepayers, and one-third of the vestry retired from office at the end of every three years. The local Act under which they acted gave the vestry the power of appointing and removing their officers, and, among others, the master and mistress of the workhouse. In the course of last winter the vestry thought proper to exercise the power reposed in them by the Act by discharging the master of the workhouse; upon which they were informed by the Poor Law Board that they alone had the power to determine the continuance of that officer in his situation! The vestrymen, relying upon their local Act, which had not been repealed, and feeling that they had taken an oath which obliged them to conform to it, which they would not do if they obeyed the Poor Law Board, refused to comply with the order of the Board, or at least did not attend to it, whereupon the Board intimated to the vestrymen that, if they did not reinstate the master of the workhouse in his place, they would as soon as possible apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel them. Now, he thought that all this proved that the law was uncertain, and led to litigation. To show that the law, as interpreted by the Poor Law Board, was not in harmony with the intentions of the original framers of the Act, he would refer to the opinions of the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Sir John Jervis), and the present Chief Baron of the Exchequer (Sir Frederick Pollock), and to the observations of the late Sir Robert Peel in 1841. He (Lord D. Stuart) believed that all the parishes which were governed by local Acts were anxious to be relieved from the interference of the Poor Law Board. Nor was this desire an unreasonable one, considering the results of this local management. He held in his hand a return relating to two of the largest and most important parishes in the metropolis—he might say, in the World—he meant St. Pancras and Marylebone, and showing that, while the population and number of ratepayers were constantly increasing, the number of paupers, and the amount expended for their maintenance, were constantly diminishing. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board had stated the other evening, in answer to the hon. Member for Finsbury, that the Poor Law Board had no desire to interfere with the St. Pancras vestry and the removal of the master of the workhouse, and that all they did was to inquire into the reason for his dismissal. That was a mistake. He thought the vestry of St. Pancras would have been perfectly justified if they had refused to grant the information required by the Poor Law Board; but, in point of fact, they had not refused, for no request had been directly made to them. What took place was this, that on the 11th of March, since the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trollope) acceded to office, a letter was received from his office intimating that the Board would not allow the vestry to dismiss the master of the workhouse without carrying the case by mandamus to the Court of Queen's Bench; but if the vestry had any charge to make against the master, the Board was ready to listen and to report upon it. That was the only manner in which information was requested, and surely that could not be called a direct request. He hoped the Motion which he now brought forward would not be resisted by the Government. He would have made it though his political friends had been in power, though he confessed with far less hope than now, when the Treasury Bench was occupied by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, on every occasion when the Poor Law Bill was brought before the House had voted against it. In 1834, when the Bill was first introduced; in 1839, in 1840, in 1841, in 1842, and again in 1847, which was the last time this Bill was brought before the House, the same opposition was given to it. In 1841, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the Bill on the ground that it terminated the old parochial constitution of the country, and outraged the manners of the people for a mere sordid consideration. In 1847, the present Judge Advocate General (Mr. Bankes) had told them that the question for their consideration was not whether they were to remodel the Act of 1834, but whether, in reconstructing that part of it relating to central control, they would maintain substantially the same system; the right hon. President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley) had implored the House not to deprive the people under this Bill of their inalienable birthright; the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board had said that he could not find a clause in the Bill of which be approved; and the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests (Lord J. Manners) had said that he had not heard one argument which would induce him to support such a measure. He (Lord D. Stuart) asked these right hon. Gentlemen whether they were now prepared to continue this Bill, which they had formerly so strongly condemned, without the alteration of a single clause? The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared a few nights since that his intention was to carry out in office the principles he had advocated in opposition. He (Lord D. Stuart) could not understand, then, how the right hon. Gentleman could support this Bill in its integrity, and so continue to the Poor Law Board those powers which he had so often denounced as unconstitutional and oppressive. He (Lord D. Stuart) considered that, under the administration of the Poor Law Board, the poor were frequently exposed to very great cruelty and oppression; that the system of medical relief was very objectionable; that in many instances the poor suffered grievously in consequence of the enormous size of the Unions; and that the inmates of workhouses—especially the aged poor—were treated with much unnecessary rigour. He felt so strongly the importance of this subject that he should think it his duty to press his Motion to a division.

seconded the Motion.

said, that the object of the present Bill was to continue the powers of the Poor Law Board for two years. The powers now possessed by the Board would expire on the 23rd of July, or at the end of the next Session of Parliament, and, as the next Session might be one of very uncertain duration, it was necessary to bring in a measure to continue the powers of the Board. He thought the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) did not wish to abolish the Board altogether, but that he merely desired to restrict the powers of the Board with reference to certain parishes which were under the government of local Acts. No legislative or administrative powers were sought under this Bill. It was merely a Bill to continue the power of the Board for a limited period, and he thought it was most inconvenient that, upon such a measure, a discussion should be raised upon the whole theory and principle of the Poor Laws. The noble Lord had referred principally to the government of the poor in the parishes of St. Pancras and Marylebone, and had said, that in those parishes the operation of the Poor Law was extremely uncertain; that it led to litigation; and that its effect was inconsistent with the intentions of its framers. He (Sir J. Trollope) was not prepared to admit that the law was uncertain, for a number of decisions had been given clearly establishing the right of the Poor Law Board to issue regulations for the parishes to which the noble Lord had referred. It was true that a case had arisen in the parish of St. Pancras, to which the noble Lord had referred, respecting the right to dismiss the master of the workhouse; and that question was still in dependence. The master of the St. Pancras workhouse was lately discharged without any reference being made to the Poor Law Board, and he believed one of the material offences given to the vestry by the master was, that he had ventured to submit his case first to a Poor Law Inspector, and then to the Board itself. That was not an offence to be overlooked by the parochial authorities, and therefore they had refused to reinstate the man in his office, or to submit to the Poor Law Board. It was an act of courtesy on the part of the Poor Law Board that they had deferred any legal proceedings till after this Motion and discussion, because, if the noble Lord could induce the House to agree to this Motion and take away the powers of the Board, there would be an end of their interference. But if the House did so, there would be nothing but uncertainty: one system prevailing in one place, and another in another. The relief of the poor in the city of London would be governed upon one system, in St. Pancras upon another; to the north of Oxford-street you would have one law, to the south another. If the noble Lord's Motion were carried, it would exempt about one-eighth of the population and one-ninth of the Poor Law expenditure from any central control and supervision; for there were about 350 parishes under local Acts, comprising 2,000,000 of the population out of 18,000,000. Would such an exemption be advisable? Was it not to be expected that the abuses which existed before 1834 would return—the malversation of funds, the feasting, the eating and drinking, and objectionable methods of granting relief? The noble Lord supposed that all the parishes having local Acts were anxious to shake off the control of the Commissioners; but it happened that the very first deputation that was received at the Poor Law Board after his accepting office was from a metropolitan parish, asking for advice how they might relieve themselves from the operation of their local Act. It was plain, therefore that parishes were not so unanimous on this subject as the noble Lord supposed. It was true there were four petitions in favour of the noble Lord's Motion; but from whom did these petitions come? Not from the ratepayers, but from the vestrymen—the parochial authorities, who did not like to be controlled by the Poor Law Commissioners. It might be said, that they represented the ratepayers; but were the latter altogether satisfied with the management? In Marylebone, the list of vestrymen proposed by those with whom the noble Lord was in communication had just been successfully opposed; and he (Sir J. Trollope) had some very strong statements before him from gentlemen connected with Marylebone, who did not consider that things were as they ought to be in that parish. As a, resident for several years in that parish, he could himself bear witness to the dissatisfaction that was generally felt on the point; and he held in his hand a letter from a gentleman who had long been resident physician in the workhouse, complaining of several defects, among others that the workhouse, which could only properly accommodate 1,500, was sometimes forced to contain from 1,900 to 2,200; that there was no proper classification of the inmates; that the boys' school was close to the men's ward, and the girls' school to the women's ward, and that communication took place between the children and the adults, to the manifest injury of the former; and that the atmosphere of the establishment was prejudicial to infant life, so that about seventy infants died annually in the establishment; while the number of inmates under medical treatment averaged 600, or about one-third of the whole. He (Sir J. Trollope) might state that in 1843 a lengthened inquiry took place before two medical gentlemen as to the rate of mortality in the Marylebone workhouse, and they made a report which gave very great offence to the Marylebone vestrymen. [The right hon. Baronet then read a communication from Dr. Boyd, now connected with a pauper lunatic asylum at Wells, and who formerly held a medical appointment under the Marylebone vestry, showing the hard lot of the little girls brought up in the Marylebone workhouse, after they left that establishment to go to service among the small tradespeople and shopkeepers in the parish, who expected them to do the work of experienced servants, though it was not at all suited to their years or station; also, a statement from Dr. Allen, still more recently holding a similar appointment.] There was no reproach on the character of either of the two medical gentlemen whose communications he had read. Since dissolving their connexion with the Marylebone vestry, they had both been appointed to the management of pauper lunatic asylums, and he thought their evidence was unimpeachable. He contended that the parishes of Marylebone and St. Pancras—the former with a population of 157,000, and the latter of 167,000—were much too large to admit of the wants of the poor being properly attended to by local boards. The Marylebone vestry was occasionally termed the Marylebone Parliament, from the circumstance of its being sometimes converted into an arena for the discussion of the wrongs of Poland and of Hungary, and such questions as the window tax; and perhaps they had a right to discuss such matters, provided they did not neglect the relief of their own poor. But he did say that in those great parishes there were many and grievous faults of management, which it was in the power of the local boards to remedy. For instance, the parish of Marylebone had not followed the example of many other metropolitan parishes, and removed their pauper children out of the precincts of the workhouse. He was sure that no man who understood the management of a workhouse would say it was right to keep 400 children within the walls of such an establishment. All that they had done in Marylebone was to remove some sixty or seventy of the children to a sea-bathing establishment at Margate. On the other hand, the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, among others that might be named, and than which there was no better example of good local management, had removed their pauper children to a healthy, dry, airy spot at Chelsea, where they were out of the way of contamination, and where everything was done for their proper accommodation. But not so with that great metropolitan parish, Marylebone. It confined 400 children within the walls of its own workhouse, subject to all the contamination they might receive from the admixture of classes. He might cite another case. On the 22nd of April last a Motion was made in the Queen's Bench for a mandamus against the vestrymen of St. Mary's, Islington, to compel them, under the provisions of their own local Act, to make a rate for the relief of the poor. The learned counsel who made the application said, the object to be attained was—

"To command the defendants to cause a vestry meeting to be assembled, as by adjournment from the meeting of the vestry on Easter Tuesday last. At that time a meeting was held for the purpose of ascertaining what was the sum necessary to be raised for the relief of the poor in the present year. On that day the vestry had assembled under the local Act which was in force in the parish, and an estimate of the money that would be required for the maintenance of the poor for the year was duly presented; but the rate to raise the money was not at that moment agreed to, because, by the local Act, other machinery was to be put in motion before the rate was actually made. The local Act was the 5 Geo. IV., c. 125, which repealed several other Acts passed for a similar purpose. The facts of the case were these:—On Easter Tuesday last there was a meeting, after due notice given, and an estimate was duly presented, declaring the sum required to he imposed for the relief of the poor amounted to 22,000l., instead ofl 29,000l, as in 1850, and 27,000l as in 1851. A Motion was made that this estimate should be received and adopted, and entered or. the Minutes. It was objected that if it was adopted all further discussion would be precluded, and therefore it was moved that it should only be entered on the Minutes. This was done. An Amendment was then moved, that the sum necessary for the relief of the poor was one penny. The Motion was seconded, but was ultimately withdrawn; but in the end the meeting negatived the proposed estimate. The poor were, therefore, left without provision, except through the means of what some rich and charitable individuals among the parishioners had advanced. The object of this application was to compel the defendants, under the provisions of their own local Act, to complete what had been begun, and not only to enter the estimate on the Minutes, but to adopt the estimate, and to make a rate."

Now, what did the Court do in this case? The Court granted the application, and, on the suggestion of Mr. Pashley, the counsel who applied for it, that the matter was one of pressing necessity, the Court, without granting a rule nisi in the usual way, ordered a mandamus to issue. The Poor Law Board did not wish to interfere unnecessarily; but ought such bodies as these to he left to their own devices without control or supervision? If inquiry was instituted, the system of administration under local Acts would be much discredited, and its defects and want of uniformity exposed. If places under local Acts were exempted, as proposed, under what pretence could a Poor Law Board be retained at all for the supervision of Boards of Guardians? The official dignity of the parochial authorities might be somewhat encroached upon by the Poor Law Board; but it was for the interest of the ratepayers to maintain a system which, by an efficient and all-searching supervision and control, kept down the rates. He had received a copy of a petition from St. James's, Westminster, which seemed to argue for the reservation of powers in the vestry over their own officers. The noble Lord's Motion proceeded very much on the same principle. What was sought was, that the officers should be subject to annual election; he feared that they would be too much the slaves of the vestries. On every occasion where due reason was assigned, such as misconduct, or unfitness for their duties, the Poor Law Board invariably acted on the recommendation of the local boards. They reserved the exercise of a veto on the removal of an officer without due cause shown. He did not think it necessary to enter on the dispute relative to the master of St. Pancras workhouse; but he must say, that these local boards were exceedingly jealous of central control. He had referred to the consequent disadvantage to the ratepayers. In 1846 provision was made for payments to parishes on account of medical relief, and masters and mistresses in the workhouse schools. Those payments went to relieve them of one-half the charge of the first, and the whole of the second, items. For six years had one of the metropolitan parishes, where the medical relief annually cost 2,000l, declined to apply for the portion paid from the Parliamentary grant, and the ratepayers had consequently lost 1,000l. a year. He mentioned that case to show that those parishes were so exceedingly jealous of central authority, they would not receive even a benefit from it. The noble Lord had made out no case, and if the noble Lord went into the whole subject, he (Sir J. Trollope) was prepared to meet him; he was prepared to show, that if one portion of the parishes were to be relieved from the control of the Poor Law Board, so ought the whole; that it was not right to allow one portion to remain totally without control, and another to be kept under a rigid system of management. The instruction proposed by the noble Lord opened a vast field for inquiry, to which Parliament certainly could not devote its attention this Session. He begged in conclusion to state, that the Government had cautiously abstained from asking any new powers whatever under the Bill now before the House.

said, that, considering the course which the right hon. Baronet the President of the Poor Law Board had pursued for the last ten or twelve years, those who had preserved consistency in their views must have been entertained with his discourse. The House had seen exemplified the contrast between those who were expecting the honey, and those who were receiving the sweets. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to throw doubts upon the statements of the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart), and had read letters from certain discontented persons, whom he called the "parish," and then he said the parishes in question were demanding to be relieved from the control of the vestry. But the right hon. Gentleman had failed to show anything like general discontent among the inhabitants of those parishes with the existing local government. The conduct pursued by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to this question was monstrous. The right hon. Gentleman had replied to the noble Lord just as if the noble Lord had made the Motion before the House for party purposes. Nothing could be more unfair; for the noble Lord, he (Sir G. Pechell), and those with whom they acted, had been for a length of time pressing upon the several Governments to give Boards of Guardians, under Local Acts and Gilbert Incorporation, that control over their expenditure which they ought to have; and he contended that from 1837 to March, 1852, whether under the presidency of the late Charles Buller, or the right hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Baines), with one exception, no Motion had been made in that House in regard to the management of the poor under local Acts, with a view merely to embarrass the Government for the time being. He warned the right hon. Baronet that if the system of interference with towns under the operation of local Acts was continued, it would cause such an amount of remonstrance that sooner or later redress would be inevitable. The right hon. Baronet had dwelt on the mischief which, he alleged, local Acts had produced; but at the time of the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act, the exemption of certain parishes where relief was administered by Boards of Guardians was clearly recognised by Lord Althorp. The right hon. Gentleman remarked that no petitions had been sent by those parishes; but that circumstance was explained by the fact that they had confidence in their representatives, who would, they trusted, look after their interests. Chester and Chichester had petitioned because an attempt had been made to interfere with them; but if similar attempts were made to interfere with other places in the same category (including such towns as Hull, Birmingham, Brighton, Plymouth, and Southampton), there would soon be petitions enough. If it were alleged by the right hon. Gentleman that the people were dissatisfied when directors and guardians did not avail themselves of recent Acts of the Legislature relating to the payment of medical officers and teachers, he should say the reason was that those directors and guardians had no confidence in the Poor Law Board, and they knew that if they accepted any such rules or orders with reference to medical officers or teachers as might emanate from that Board, they would be liable to interference in other respects. He (Sir G. Pechell) complained of the late interference of the Poor Law Board in the parish of Alverstoke, Gosport. Though it had been shown by the Poor Law Inspectors that the parish had been well managed, such rules and regulations were inflicted on it as required a lawyer to make out their purport. On the part of the corporations that came under the provisions of the 22 Geo. III. c. 33 (the Gilbert Act), he was desired to represent to the House their anxiety that they should not be interfered with. That there had been an interference with the parish of Gosport could not be denied; and he hoped that if an instruction could not be given to the Committee on that subject, the House would, at least, be able to persuade the right hon. Baronet not to let the Commissioners interfere with those parishes unless good cause were shown.

From my recent connexion with the Poor Law Board, I am desirous of stating shortly the grounds upon which I think it my duty to resist the proposition of my noble Friend the Member for Marylebone. In doing so, I shall confine myself strictly to the question involved in that proposition. With regard to the case of Pancras, the fact that it is about to become the subject of judicial investigation, would of itself be decisive with me as to the impropriety of discussing it now. I trust, also, that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton will pardon me if I decline, on the present occasion, to follow him into the subject of Alverstoke. Should he, at any time hereafter, think fit to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate that subject fully, and to inquire into all the facts connected with it, I have no doubt that the Poor Law Board will be perfectly prepared to meet him. The question, however, now before the House is a general one, and is substantially this, namely, whether it is expedient for Parliament to enact that the jurisdiction of the Poor Law Board shall be wholly taken away in the case of every parish in which there is a board of guardians or directors of the poor, constituted under the provisions of a local Act. There can be no doubt whatever that by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, the Commissioners (who are now represented by the Poor Law Board) were empowered, with regard to certain matters, to issue orders and rules, which should be binding upon parishes under local Acts, as well as upon all other parishes. Among those matters were the regulation of workhouses, the appointment of paid officers for the better relief and management of the poor, and the determination of the tenure by which each of those officers should hold his office. Since 1834, the Poor Law Commission has been renewed by the Legislature five times, and the powers in question have been renewed as often. The question, therefore, raised by my noble Friend is, whether Parliament was wrong in originally conferring those powers, and has also been wrong in ratifying them five times over? It is obviously a question of the greatest importance to the proper administration of the Poor Laws. The Legislature has left untouched the constitution of the Board of Guardians in every parish under a local Act; but the controlling power which I have mentioned has been given to the central authority with regard to workhouses and paid officers. The policy of the Poor Law Amendment Act in this respect is obvious. As to the regulation of workhouses, Parliament evidently thought it desirable that there should be something of uniformity in their management, and that a power of framing general rules for this purpose might be properly vested in the Commissioners, whose experience would necessarily extend over the widest field, and who would have the amplest opportunities for observation and comparison. A power to direct the appointment of such paid officers as they might deem necessary, was also given to them. The guardians elect to all such offices, but the Commissioners regulate the salaries, and determine the tenure by which the offices are to be held. They reserve to themselves the exclusive power of dismissal; and this is necessary in order to secure the independence of the officer, whose tenure would often be a most precarious one if he were liable to be dismissed at any time by a mere vote of the board of guardians, given, possibly, under the influence of some local or party prejudice, or even because he refused to consent to some unreasonable reduction of salary. What would be the situation occasionally of a chaplain, a medical officer, or even a union clerk, if he held his office upon no other tenure than this? When I look back upon my own official career, I am happy to think that in not a few instances I have protected good and efficient officers from an unmerited dismissal. I hope it is unnecessary to say that when I speak of encouraging a feeling of independence among poor-law officers, I am very far indeed from meaning to encourage insolence. Any thing like insolence on the part of such officers towards the Guardians, whose servants they are, would be discountenanced and punished by the Poor Law Board. A complaint from the Guardians of any kind of misconduct in an officer is sure to receive immediate attention, and to be followed by a strict inquiry conducted by one of the Poor Law Inspectors. For myself, I can say that whenever I was able to concur with the Guardians in their view of any question, I was most happy to do so. My earnest wish at all times was rather to co-operate with them in the administration of the Poor Law, and aid them, if I could, in the discharge of their important duties, than vexatiously to control or oppose them. I have not the least reason to believe that the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Poor Law Board will ever act in any other spirit. With regard to the introduction of the rules and orders of the Poor Law Board in parishes under local Acts, I never interfered for that purpose except in one or two cases, namely, either where the Guardians themselves applied for the introduction of those rules and orders, or where I had satisfactory proof that the local system was attended with mismanagement and abuse. There is one part of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton which I cannot pass over in silence, because it appeared to me to convey an imputation which I feel I have not deserved. He read to the House a list of parishes under local Acts, in which he stated that the Poor Law Board had not ventured to interfere; and in reading that list he laid a peculiar and significant emphasis upon the word Hull. Now I beg my hon. and gallant Friend to mark the accuracy of his information upon this point. When I had held my late office about two years, certain facts came to my knowledge which convinced me that the administration of the Poor Law at Hull under the local Act was extremely defective. Two deaths had taken place under circumstances which forced this conviction upon my mind irresistibly. I announced my in- tention of issuing the workhouse rules and orders of the Poor Law Board for the future guidance of the Hull Guardians. I found that that step would be exceedingly unpopular, as it often is with Boards of Guardians under local Acts, especially with those whose mismanagement has rendered a similar interference necessary. Strong remonstrances took place, and every argument which was likely to have weight with the Member for Hull was brought to bear upon the President of the Poor Law Board. I thought it my duty, however, to persevere: the orders were issued; and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not be sorry to hear that, according to subsequent acknowledgment of all parties, the course then pursued by the Poor Law Board has been attended with the best results both to the poor and to the ratepayers. I beg to apologise to the House for troubling them with these details. I have done so, however, because I thought that an unjust imputation had been cast upon me, and because I feel that if I have not the honesty of my administration to recommend me, I can have little claim of any kind to the good opinion of this House or of the public. With regard to the specific proposition of my noble Friend, there are other reasons against its adoption, besides those already stated, which appear to me perfectly conclusive. One effect of it would be, that in that numerous class of local Act parishes in which the rules and orders of the Poor Law Board are already in operation, to the perfect satisfaction of all parties, the old local system of management with all its faults must be restored, as the jurisdiction of the Poor Law Board would be wholly at an end in every one of those parishes. When the Poor Law Amendment Act passed in 1834, there were 375 parishes in England and Wales under local Acts, most of them being grouped in incorporations, and the remainder being single parishes each having its own Act. In a great majority of the whole number, the rules and orders of the Poor Law Board have been in operation for years. In some cases they have been introduced on the application of the Guardians themselves; in others the Guardians, though not asking for them, have consented to their introduction; and I believe that, in all, the improvement upon the former local system of administration has been undeniable. Will Parliament, by adopting the proposition of my noble Friend, consent to undo all that has been done, the revive all the old abuses—the jobbing, the injudicious or negligent treatment of the poor, and the other evils of various kinds, which have flourished more luxuriantly in some Local Act parishes than in any other parishes whatever? Besides, every one of those considerations of public policy, upon which the Poor Law Board have been authorised to issue their regulations to ordinary Boards of Guardians constituted under the Poor Law Amendment Act, is equally applicable to Boards of Guardians under local Acts. The power to prescribe a proper system of workhouse management, the power of directing the appointment of proper officers, and of regulating their duties and the tenure of their offices, are as necessary in the latter class of parishes as in any other. But it is said that there is something humiliating to a Board of Guardians under a local Act, in submitting to be guided by the rules of the Poor Law Board. Is this really so? How are the ordinary Boards of Guardians composed who act constantly upon those rules? Besides a certain number of elected Guardians, they comprise all the resident magistracy within their respective localities. Among their chairmen and vice-chairmen are to be found many of the highest nobility in the land, and many of the most distinguished Members of this House. If the Duke of Richmond at Westhampnett—if the Duke of Newcastle at Worksop—if the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies at Droitwich—if noblemen and gentlemen of this description, acting to their own high honour and to the great benefit of the public, in the administration of the Poor Law in their own neighbourhoods, are content to be guided by the regulations of the Poor Law Board, made under the authority of the Legislature, I really cannot understand why these gentlemen of Pancras and Marylebone should feel themselves humiliated by it. And if, upon every ground of reason and policy, the powers of the Poor Law Board to issue regulations for workhouses, and for the appointment and dismissal of paid officers, are just as applicable to parishes under local Acts as they are to parishes of every other description, how can Parliament be asked to put an end to those powers in the former class of parishes, and to retain them in all the latter? The question then really is, whether the authority of the Central Board should be annulled throughout the whole kingdom. This is a question of the utmost gravity and importance, going to the root of the whole system of the Poor Law-Amendment Act. It is one far too momentous to be dealt with by a clause introduced into a mere continuance Bill, when the present Parliament is on the very eve of its dissolution, and when the adequate consideration and discussion of such a question is impossible. Let any one who thinks fit, propound it to the next Parliament; let it then be grappled with manfully and settled finally. The present proposition, however, appears to me to he on every ground inadmissible, and I therefore consider myself bound to vote against it.

could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not mean any imputation whatever, and if he laid stress upon the word Hull, it was merely to attract his attention, he being Member for that town. He, on the contrary, had endeavoured to pay him the highest compliment, and his regret was that he had not remained longer in office.

begged to offer his thanks to the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone for having brought the subject under the notice of the House. He had some experience of the working of the Poor Law, and he considered that some amendment in the law was necessary.

considered that this measure was a great improvement in the law relating to the poor; but he regretted the manner in which the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) had been received by the Government. The arguments which had been used, were, in his opinion, conclusive as to the propriety of having uniformity in the law. He could not understand why a parish, carrying on its affairs satisfactorily under its own local Acts, should be interfered with. The House had a right to have an explanation of the principle on which that interference rested. Local interest must, of course, influence many hon. Members. He (Mr. J. A. Smith) was interested for Chichester, which he had represented for twenty years. It was a collection of parishes under a local Act, and he was certain no complaint could be made with regard to the management of the poor there. He wished for an explanation of the principle, therefore, on which the Poor Law Board had acted in introducing their orders into parishes which had local Acts.

said, that while the Board was under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines), who had directed it during the last Government, they had never heard a complaint against it; and it certainly had been considered a great relief from the Board which had preceded it. With regard to the parish of Marylebone, he admitted their affairs were not in that state he could wish them to be; abuses had crept in, and abuses took a long time to correct. With regard to St. Pancras, he understood the Poor Law Board had interfered with the employment of their own servants. A majority of the Board of Guardians of the parish had come to the conclusion that one of the public servants employed by them was unworthy of holding office, and he was dismissed; the general Board sitting in London had inter fered and applied for a mandamus to compel his reinstitution; that was, he considered, contrary to common sense, and calculated to excite discontent and alarm throughout the country. If the majority of the ratepayers of St. Pancras had petitioned the Board, it had a right to interfere, but not otherwise; and he had been informed the parish declined to petition, because they wished to have it understood they were not under the control of the Board, or of the Poor Law Act. The time was come when they should look into the whole question, if the Board interfered in this way. He would propose that there should be added to the Bill words to the effect that—whereas doubts had arisen how far the hundred and odd parishes with local Acts were under the authority of the Board, it should be enacted that they were exempt, and should continue to he exempt from that authority, till the majority of the ratepayers of each parish should petition to be placed under it.

said, neither in the case of Alverstoke, of St. Pancras, of Marylebone, or of Chichester, had the orders been signed by him; they had been signed and issued by his predecessor in office.

would remind the House that when the Poor Law Bill was last to be renewed, the greatest portion of the hon. Members who now sat upon the Government benches not only spoke but voted in favour of a proposition that the Board should cease and determine. He believed it was the present right hon. Judge Advocate who moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He, therefore, had hoped that this Amendment would not have been opposed. The Board of Guardians of the St. Pancras Union desired to dismiss one of their officers. The general Board said they might pay their officers, but they should not dismiss them without first obtaining their consent; and the Board now petitioned the House to be excluded from the operation of the general Poor Law. The Strand Union was an instance of Government control not having prevented the most horrible and disgusting occurrences which could take place in any public establishment. He wished to say one word in answer to the taunt thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Commission on the conduct of the vestry of the parish of Marylebone. The right hon. Gentleman said that that vestry was a political arena; but it must be remembered that Marylebone was the largest parish in the Kingdom: it had a revenue of not less than 1,000,000l. and a population of 167,000 persons; and the persons who sat at the vestry board were elected every year, in order that the various interests of the parish might be represented. It was absolutely necessary that matters of great moment should come under their consideration; but it had been stamped as a political body in this way—they had no returning officers except the churchwardens, one of whom was elected by the vestry, and the other by the Crown. Now Lord Portman, in 1829, succeeded Lord Kenyon as the Churchwarden under the Crown, and continued to hold that office under the successive Governments of Earl Grey, Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord John Russell; but the moment the noble Lord the present Commissioner of Works (Lord J. Manners) found there was a vacancy, which occurred annually, that moment Lord Portman was summarily dismissed; no communication was made to him; Lord Portman was in the country, and on his return he found a notice on his table, that he had been superseded by the Government; there was not one word of explanation, and the political partisan of the Government in the parish was instituted in his stead. The parishes complained that they were not allowed to manage their own affairs, and that mandamuses were applied for to coerce them. He thought, under the circumstances, that the Motion of his noble Friend was a very fair one, and he hoped he would press it to a division.

said, he should support the Motion, because he felt it his duty to defend the conduct of the vestry of Marylebone. If they applied the workhouse test to that parish, the number of paupers would be greatly increased, for their endeavour had been to prop up families with temporary relief in the hope that they might, with such assistance, be able afterwards to support themselves, instead of their becoming inmates of the workhouse.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House back to the question immediately before them. That question had nothing whatever to do with the well or ill management of the Marylebone vestry; neither was it whether the Poor Law Board should be continued for two years longer, for no one had disputed that at all; but the question was whether, ay or no, those parishes which had local Acts should be exempted from the authority of the Board? The noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) had charged him (Mr. Henley), and others on that side of the House, with inconsistency in opposing the present Motion, in the face of the fact that they resisted the Bill of 1847; but he denied that there was any inconsistency in the matter. He did not believe that the question of local boards, to which the present Motion referred, was at all agitated in 1847. The debate on that occasion wholly turned, he believed, upon the constitution of the Poor Law Board; and he must say that the course which was taken by himself and his friends in relation to that matter, had been justified by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull (Mr. Baines) that night. The House would remember that the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of the manner in which he had regulated his conduct, said, "I did this," and "I did that," demonstrating that what was done was the action of a single individual, and not the action of a Board. Now, the main ground which he (Mr. Henley) and those who acted with him took in 1847, was that it was indispensable to the well working of the Poor Law system that there should be a single responsibility. It would be remembered, that up to that period there was an almost uniform discontent throughout the country with the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners; but owing to the able management of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baines), and his lamented predecessor (Mr. C. Buller), since the introduction of the new system, it might almost be said that the public had no knowledge of the Poor Law Board, so smoothly had every thing worked. It would be quite impossible to deal with the whole question of the Poor Law in the course of the present Session; and he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would vigorously discountenance any attempt to accomplish such an object. Very many of the transactions under the Poor Law, which they had of late years had to deplore—such, for instance, as the calamitous mortality at Tooting— could not have taken place if the Board had had larger powers of interference than it at present possessed. With respect to the question then before them as to whether parishes having local Acts should be exempted from the operation of the Poor Law Act, he begged to observe that no one had attempted to answer the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull on the subject; and, agreeing as he (Mr. Henley) did with that right hon. Gentleman, that there was nothing in reason or principle to justify them in exempting parishes that happened to be under local Acts from the control of the Poor Law Board, any more than parishes that were under the authority of the general Act, he must give his vote against the proposition of the noble Lord.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had laboured in vain to remove the impression which had been produced by the speech of his (Mr. Wakley's) noble Friend (Lord 1). Stuart) with respect to the charge of inconsistency against the other side of the House. But the fact was, that words were beginning to lose their meaning. "Inconsistency" now meant "change," and "change" meant "consistency." But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he opposed the Bill five years ago, why should he support it now? Under the present Poor Law there were as many horrors as under the old, though it happened that at this moment there was no pressure upon the workhouses, owing to the cheapness of food and the abundance of employment. Were the scenes witnessed at Andover and Tooting forgotten? The fact was, that hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, until they were in office, abhorred the centralising power; but now they were willing to take up the measure and perpetuate it, to the extreme annoyance of the ratepayers of this country. What was wanted by the country was a Poor Law Court, with a Poor Law Judge, before whom applications from the various parishes could be considered and decided in public, and then, in a very short time, there would be a code of laws for our guidance in such matters. He trusted the Government, if they did not approve of the noble Lord's Amendment, would relinquish the Bill, and wait and see what could be done in the next Session of Parliament, until the end of which period the present law did not terminate.

said, that since the law had been under the management of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull (Mr. Baines) a very great improvement had taken place; but the right hon. Gentleman had never interfered with the parishes. In the parish of Marylebone, he knew of the Board finding fault with the dietary for being much too good. It appeared that the prisoners in the county of Middlesex were much better fed than the poor in many of the poorhouses throughout the country. He would advise the right hon. Baronet the President of the Poor Law Board to allow those parishes that were governed by local Acts to manage their own affairs. They could manage them much better than he could. He hoped that he would consent to withdraw all interference with these parishes. If the right hon. Gentleman would not consent to do so, he hoped that the House would consent to the Motion of his noble Friend.

said, that unless there was some central authority to see that the Act of Parliament was duly applied in the control of workhouses, the whole Bill of the Legislature would be constantly set at nought by local Boards of Guardians, He would press most urgently upon the right hon. Baronet the President of the Poor Law Board the necessity of making some inquiry into the state of the metropolitan workhouses, in some of which, as was shown by the returns of the Registrar General, there had been a very large amount of mortality.

said, he was really quite tired of hearing without contradiction the statements which had been made as to the present universal employment of the lower orders in this country. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had stated that there was no pressure upon the workhouses, in consequence of the cheapness of food and the abundance of employment. [Mr. WAKLEY: I said there were less than formerly.] But lot the hon. Member look to the sister country of Ireland, whore, in one of the Unions, the assistance of soldiers had been demanded in order to maintain order among the idle men within the walls. He would quote from an article which appeared in the Times on this subject, in which it was observed—

"It is quite clear that a very trifling expense, as compared with the cost of their permanent maintenance at home, would transport these turbulent spirits from the scenes of their riotous exploits to distant regions, where their thews and sinews might be employed with advantage to themselves and to others. When will official men begin to shake off the humdrums of tradition, and look the facts of a totally new situation boldly in the face? Our modern statesmen are called upon to deal with a state of facts for which the experience of their predecessors offers no solution. Action is wanted, and instant action. We are not dealing simply with a redundant population at home, but with a perishing colony abroad."

The other night the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had told the House that there were thousands in Scotland who were unemployed, and who must be sent to Australia; and to-morrow night there was a ball for the relief of the unemployed in London. Let hon. Gentlemen ask the Spitalfields weavers whether they were employed; and let them go into the agricultural districts, let them go to Leicestershire, go into the labourers' cottages there, and ask them whether they have been benefited by free-trade measures. He knew that if they were to do so, the labourers would tell them that the reverse had been the fact. He begged pardon of the House for having made these observations; but the reiterations of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the increased employment in the country since the adoption of free trade, compelled him to rise.

could only say, with regard to the statements of the last speaker, that in the district to which he belonged, there was not a labourer out of employment; and at this moment there was not a single ablebodied pauper in the workhouse. As to the question before the House, he should be very sorry to see all centralising authority withdrawn, for he was convinced the poor would very much suffer from it. But, as there was a doubt about the law, he thought the House ought to see that that doubt was removed, and he should consequently vote in favour of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone.

found that he could not, in point of order, propose the Amendment which he had put on the paper, but he would take the opportunity of stating that in 1850, the Poor Law Board issued an order which, in effect, removed all executive functions from the Guardians. In this order the rule was laid down that vestries should not remove their own officers, except with the permission of the Board—that, in fact, they should be retained for life. Now, this was a state of matters that ought not to exist. The vestries had appointed their officers for a century back, and it was preposterous that the Commissioners, who had nothing to do with their appointment, should interfere to keep them in their places. Such an arrangement could never work well.

explained that he did not mean anything beyond making those parishes which had local Acts independent of the Poor Law Board.

moved that the blank be filled up with"1853,"instead of"1854," his object being to limit the duration of the Bill to one year.

said, he desired to see the Board continued for five years. In 1842 and 1847 the Board was continued for five years, and there was no reason why it should now be limited to a shorter period, for the Poor Law Commission stood better in public opinion now than formerly. It was most desirable to give the Poor Law Board a permanent character, not affected by political changes.

wished to ask the hon. Member for North Wiltshire whether he intended to take any other opportunity of moving that the Poor Law Bill be continued for five years?

said, he would take that opportunity of giving notice that on the Report being brought up, he would move that the Bill be continued for five years.

said, he would give such a proposal all the opposition in his power, and hoped the matter would be brought on at a period of the evening when it could be fully discussed.

said, he fully concur- red in the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone. It appeared to him that the question of the renewal of the Poor Law Commission was becoming very like the question of the renewal of the Income Tax, which was in the first instance passed to meet a temporary emergency, but which now seemed to be a permanent measure. (If the continuance of the Poor Law Board was intended to he considered a settled matter, he thought the best plan would be to settle it once for all; but if the Board was to be continued from time to time, the shorter the time the better.